Chapter 3:Reconcile Bank Statements: Fill & Download for Free

1. To rightly appreciate salvation and the gift of eternal life, a person needs to comprehend sin and its judgment.a. After Paul’s greeting in this epistle (1:1-17), he thoroughly condemned Gentiles and Jews (1:18 – 3:20).b. He condemned all men for rejecting the revealed truth in creation and providence and nature (1:18-1:32).c. He put all men on notice that even the best were accumulating wrath for the Day of Judgment (2:1-11).d. He explained that all men were guilty whether they had Moses’ written law or conscience of it (2:12-16).e. He condemned Jews for their arrogance about having the written law though disobeying it (2:17 – 3:8).f. He then condemned all men by their known character and conduct and rejection of God’s law (3:9-20).2. The price for rebellion against creation, providence, nature, conscience, and scripture is infinite punishment.a. Every soul will stand before Christ’s Judgment Seatb. All unsaved sinners will spend eternity in tormenting firec. The whole universe will be destroyed by the wrath of God3. Therefore, the concept and doctrine of salvation from this sentence and gift of eternal life are truly incredible.a. Paul’s opening statement about salvation called it a free gift claimed by faith without the law (3:21-31).b. He took Jews to Abraham to see he was declared righteous before circumcision or Moses’ law (4:1-25).4. Therefore, Romans chapter five is the positive explanation with the details of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.a. Having introduced justification by Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul listed five present benefits (5:1-5).b. He then explained in detail how these benefits were secured by Jesus Christ death and now life (5:6-11).c. If showing that Abram was justified without law was inadequate, he took us all back to Adam (5:12-19).d. No other place in the Bible details original sin, federal headship, representation, and imputation like this.e. Having proved salvation by Jesus alone, Paul briefly showed Moses’ law only a teacher of condemnation.f. He declared the reigning claim of sin and death being destroyed by the reign of grace and righteousness.g. The great victory of saving enemy rebels from His righteous wrath to heaven is by Jesus Christ our Lord.5. For plain, powerful details of the legal and practical phases of salvation, this may be the Bible’s best chapter.a. Learn the chapter’s sections so as to have smaller pieces to more fully consider and deeply meditate upon.b. Learn the chapter’s sections to share specific doctrine with others and answer heresies of false teachers.Romans 5:9 introduced the facet to us as a finished fact based on the blood of Jesus Christ.Reconcile. To bring (a person) again into friendly relations to or with (oneself or another) after an enstrangement. [OED]. The Law of Moses forbad the eating of any sacrifice whose blood had been taken into the holy place to reconcile … to make atonement for sin, as on the Day of Atonement (Lev 6:30). Philistines feared David would reconcile himself to Saul by cutting off their heads (I Sa 29:4) !A Christian wife divorcing her husband must remain single or be reconciled to him (I Co 7:11). We do accounting or bank reconciliations to make sure that amounts or numbers totally agree.Reconciliation is a relational term describing restored friendship with God as our former Enemy. God reconciled the elect to Himself by pouring out His wrath on Jesus Christ in their place and satisfying His anger and enmity, for we were made acceptable to Him in the Beloved. Once we were God's enemies, but the death of His Son reconciled us to God; and with that reconciliation in place, we shall be saved by his intercessory life for us (Romans 5:9-10). God reconciled the world of His elect to Himself in Jesus Christ by not imputing their trespasses to them, and the gospel is only the word of that event for our minds (II Cor 5:18-20). Jesus Christ by His bloody death made peace with God and reconciled all the elect to God, who had been and are before regeneration both aliens and enemies of God (Col 1:20-22). The death of Christ reconciled both Jews and Gentiles to God by bringing peace (Eph 2:14-18). Those who are not reconciled remain under their sins and God's wrath, for God is angry with the wicked every day (Ps 7:11; Matt 7:21-23; John 3:36; Rom 9:22; Eph 2:1-3). The Desire of all Nations made peace while the second temple was yet standing (Haggai 2:6-9) Those who have been forgiven much will love much (Luke 7:36-50). What about you? The love of Christ constrained the apostle Paul (II Cor 5:14-17). What about you? The adoption of sons should purify our lives (I John 3:3). What about you?

“Because the New Testament has been scrutinized with more intensity than any other work of literature in the history of the world, it is not surprising to discover that virtually every passage in the Gospels has been seen as conflicting with some other passage by someone at some time in history.” [1](This answer will only address the Synoptic Problem. For a discussion of the book of John, see: Jenny Hawkins's answer to What might be some reasons why the Gospel according to John is so different from the other canonical Gospels (called synoptics)?Charges of error and contradiction fall into seven main categories with at least five involving some substantial differences.Contradictory theology.Since the rise of redaction criticism, (the theory that different copyists and commentators embellished and altered the biblical texts to make them appear more miraculous, inspirational, and legitimate), every difference anywhere in the Gospels has been called into question and examined.Some critics have taken a parallel teaching from two gospels, contrasted them, then concluded that contrast is evidence of contradictory theology.Redaction criticism is refuted by Textual Criticism showing the majority of these differences are not so much contradictory as they are complementary and that the original texts of the Bible can be reconstructed with accuracy.Comparing some parallel accounts, such as Jesus walking on water in both Matthew and Mark, does in fact show different views of the same event. In Matthew the disciples confess Jesus is the Son of God immediately, while in Mark they maintain a fearful silence. John Heil persuasively argues Mark deliberately withheld the declaration, saving it for its climactic appearance in Mark 15:39. [2] They both declared Jesus the ‘Son of God’, just at different places.Often what appear to be contradictory perspectives between Matthew and Mark is explainable as Matthew choosing to highlight the slightly more positive side and Mark underlining the more negative one.2. ParaphraseThe most common ‘contradiction’ between the Gospels is a simple variation in language. Two different writers don’t retell a story using identical words.Mark and Luke both report a voice from Heaven at Jesus’ baptism saying “You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” Matthew’s account of the same event has “This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased.”This type of minor variation in wording does not call into question the historical reliability of the event itself. [3]3. Summaries introducing new terminologyIn Matthew’s account of the ‘Great Commission’ Jesus commands the Twelve to ‘make disciples’ and baptize them in the name of the ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ Luke in Acts, on the other hand, depicts the disciples baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’.Many scholars believe Jesus could not have actually said anything as explicitly trinitarian as Matthew suggests because they believe the Trinity was a later development in Christian theology, so they believe this statement was added or changed at a later time. This conviction about the theology of the Trinity rests on outdated and demonstrably false ideas about the Gospels having a slow, evolutionary development. (Form criticism) [4]The earliest documents and the sources underlying them—such as the oral creeds—do create links between Jesus and the Spirit and God the Father which suggests a “revolutionary” rather than an “evolutionary” emergence of high Christology. [5]It is reasonable to imagine Jesus making his own summary of His relationship with the Father and the Spirit. It is also reasonable to conclude the church applied this to the rite of baptism as emphasizing belonging to all three through Jesus specifically.4. Theological clarificationMany examples exist under this heading but two of the most striking are Jesus’ teaching his disciples about their family priorities and the rich young ruler about his view of Jesus.Luke 14 says Jesus warned his disciples that “if anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sister—yes even life itself—he cannot be my disciple.”At first it seems that when Matthew is telling this, he tones it down: “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me… (10:37)” But Matthew’s paraphrase is actually a fair interpretation—a theological clarification—of what Jesus meant.In Semitic language and thought ‘hate’ had a broader range of meanings than it has in English including the sense of ‘leaving aside’.“The Semitic way of saying “I prefer this to that” was “I like this and hate that”. Thus for the followers of Jesus to ‘hate’ their families meant giving the family second place in their affections.” [6]With the rich young ruler, Mark and Luke describe Jesus replying to the question: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? with “Why do you call me good?…No one is good except God alone.”Matthew however rephrases both question and answer: “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? and “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.”It can’t be correct that Matthew intended to change the true point of Mark’s version, since Matthew concludes with the same identical affirmation of God alone as good. So Matthew paraphrases for some other reason. The most probable seems rooted in Matthew’s theological concerns to avoid the possible misunderstanding inherent in Mark’s and Luke’s version that Jesus was denying his own goodness.5. Representational changesLuke writes for the least Jewish audience of all the Gospels and there are at least three clear examples of him changing the imagery in a narrative from something distinctly Palestinian into its Greco-Roman version.In the parable of the two builders, Luke adds that the wise man who built his house on the rock ‘dug down deep and laid the foundation’—a practice more common outside Palestine—and he takes the storm with its violent wind that those in the Israeli desert would be familiar with popping up in small dry river beds suddenly swollen with rain, and he turns it into a calmer flood more characteristic of a larger river slowly overflowing its banks. Luke’s version of the mustard seed has the plant growing in a garden instead of a field. His account of lowering the paralytic through the roof has the men removing tiles—common to Roman buildings—whereas Mark has them ‘digging’ through the roof as would have been necessary with the thatched roofs of Palestine.All of Luke’s changes of this type are aimed at helping a non-Jewish audience better understand the imagery and thereby “get” the meaning of the narrative more accurately.Modern translations often do the same. A literal translation of 2 Corinthians 6:12b is “you have narrow room in your intestines” but even the NASB—that typically stays quite close to the original language —changes that one! The ancient Jews believed the bowels were the seat of the emotions, therefore in the parlance of first century Palestine this phrase meant “you are restrained in your affections.” That’s much clearer to us and doesn’t change the writer’s intent.6. SynechdochSynechdoch is a figure of speech in which a part is substituted for a whole or vice versa. When the poet speaks of ‘three sails’ for three ships that’s synechdoch. “All hands on deck” is synechdoch as well —and as such is not to be interpreted literally. (That would be messy.)There is a seeming discrepancy in the gospel narratives where Jesus speaks of ‘gifts’ that is best explained as synechdoche.Matthew (7:11) quotes Jesus as saying “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in Heaven give good gifts to those who ask him.” Luke follows Matthew almost exactly—except—he substitutes ‘Holy Spirit’ for ‘good gifts’. Since the Holy Spirit is the pre-eminent example of all the good gifts God gives, and is the most important of them, it represents the whole.A similar example of close parallelism with a sudden change in terminology is found at the end of Jesus’ parable of the children in the marketplace. Is wisdom justified by her ‘deeds’ (Matthew 11:19) or her ‘children’ (Luke 7:35)?Luke’s version says wisdom is vindicated by the lives of her children who are, in this case, those who accept Christ’s teaching. This teaching must be lived out. Matthew—in keeping with his emphasis—uses synechdoch to refer to the part of the whole that demonstrates this: their actions.These somewhat enigmatic statements are actually complementary views of the same idea using synechdoch.7. Partial reports of longer SayingsIt is quite natural for one writer to focus on one part of a narrative and a different writer to focus on another. Paraphrase and variation in wording choice account for other differences.Luke has preserved the longest and most detailed record of the dialogue between Jesus and the High Priest during the interrogation by the Sanhedrin on the night of Jesus’ arrest. Matthew and Mark condensed their versions into one or two questions: “Are you the Christ?” and “Are you the Son of God (the Blessed One)? Mark, however, includes Jesus’ ‘I am’ statement.(Alternatively, Luke may have taken Mark’s short version and rewritten it to reflect the additional information he had obtained.)Either way, Jesus’ answer is faithfully preserved in Matthew and Luke since all three Gospels agree Jesus replied to Pilate later that morning in the same cryptic fashion. All three include Jesus saying “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One.”Mark and Matthew have the centurion declare Jesus to be God’s Son at his death from crucifixion, while Luke has him saying ‘Surely this was a righteous man.’This is consistent with each of the Evangelists taking the part of the longer saying that best reflected their own primary concerns. Matthew and Mark highlight Jesus as God’s Son more than Luke, whereas Luke in both his Gospel and Acts stresses the fact that Jesus—and the early Christians—were innocent of any crime against Israel or Rome.Solving the synoptic problem—reconciling the Gospels to one another in each detail—shows there are also chronological problems, omissions, composite speeches, apparent doublets, and variations in some names and numbers. They are not exactly the same.Human MemoryTo me, this is partly about human memory. A distinction exists in memory between the “gist” of a story and its details. We tend to remember the main points—the gist of the story—and what details are necessary for that, but otherwise we humans are prone to forget or mis-remember other details. An eye-witness memory, preserved in all tellings—even if other details are not the same—can still be seen as coinciding if the focus remains the gist of the story.Differences in detail simply reinforce the fact the Gospels reflect these characteristics of real human memory.The practice of oral history, we know now, involves memorization by an individual (the oral tradent) entrusted with the responsibility. All new Christians were required to memorize certain creeds in order to ‘qualify’ for baptism and acceptance into the fold. Community involvement would have been limited to correcting the oral ‘tradent’ whenever there was variation in the retelling of the narratives in the manner of children with a favorite book.This dependability would not have prevented small variations in detail.Even if all of these differences are seen as ‘errors’ —though none here merit that label—the general trustworthiness of the Gospels remains untouched. All ancient documents have this kind of variation.It is known the Roman historian Tacitus was prejudiced in his writing, presenting an ‘aristocratic bias’ and a belief that moralizing was the ‘highest function’ of history. His texts contain inaccuracies—he credits speeches to people who never gave them or incorrectly reports details of battle accounts. Does this mean Tacitus must be rejected entirely as undependable? No. Tacitus is known as Rome’s greatest historian because, even with his flaws, he ‘never consciously sacrifices historical truth.’ [7]The Greek Heroditus blended legends and anecdotal material into his histories while Livy allowed for the operation of omens. They both wrote about events that took place long before their own time with the results showing frequent inconsistencies and contradictions—yet modern historians do not despair. Scholars can make allowances.There are four reports of Caesar crossing the Rubicon and they do not agree on much—except the historical event itself.Or as Murray Harris emphasizes ‘the presence of discrepancies in circumstantial detail is no proof the central fact is unhistorical.’Treating the biblical documents differently is simply special pleading.It turns out the Gospels have fewer of these ‘differences’ than any other known ancient document.The Synoptic problem does not prove the Gospels are undependable. On the contrary, it underlines their historicity and compatibility and their obvious nature as having testimonies of real eye-witnesses with real human memories at the foundation of each one.I would like to add an addendum as a response to some things mentioned elsewhere.One of the most famous examples of inconsistency is the difference in the birth stories between Luke and Matthew, and the particular issues with Luke’s version. Since I have covered this in detail elsewhere, (Jenny Hawkins's answer to Do Christians really believe the census in the Bible took place?), I will only say here that there are two things to keep in mind.One, it is acknowledged by the vast majority of biblical scholars that the synoptic writers depended upon earlier sources for much of the information they recorded. Luke’s birth story “is filled with grammatical and stylistic nuances … that make sense as a very wooden, literal translation of Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek. …Luke most probably relied on earlier tradition for these chapters.” (p.47, Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels). The difficulties here may, therefore, be purely linguistic.And two, it is a mistake to assume the Gospel writers had any intention of putting Jesus’ ministry in any particular chronological order. This is particularly true when making comparisons between John and the other gospels. John is not included in the synoptics for good reasons.The Gospels simply do not provide enough information about times and places to enable them to be fitted into any particular chronology. The words translated ‘now’ and ‘then’ in English do not, in the Greek, imply events happened consecutively.Following a thematic order is a perfectly legitimate approach; there is nothing that requires an exact chronology in order for the teachings and events supporting them to still be true.“Luke …moves his notice of John the Baptist’s imprisonment from its place in the middle of Jesus’ Galilean ministry in Mark (6:14–29) to the start of that ministry instead in order that it might form the natural conclusion of his section on John the Baptist’s mission.” (p.169, Blomberg)Literary license.Lastly, it has been claimed that,“Sometimes inconsistencies are not differences in the portrayal of a particular event, but instances where one event is inconsistent with another event in a different gospel. John Shelby Spong says, in Jesus for the NonReligious, Mary’s concern for Jesus’ mental state (Mark) is inconsistent with having had an angel proclaim his conception (Luke 1:27).”What Mark 3:21 actually says is, “When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’” Mary isn’t mentioned.From other references, we think this family visit was most likely from his brothers, of whom it is well known that they did not believe or support Jesus during his earthly ministry. They had a hard time believing ‘big brother’ was anything but what they thought he was.Another possible translation for the word ‘family’ is ‘associates’ so this could be a group of Jesus ‘contemporaries’—the kids he grew up with so to speak—which may or may not include his brothers but probably would not include his mother.Either way, this is one of the reasons Jesus showing himself to James after the resurrection (as it says he did in 1 Cor.15) and James subsequently becoming a leader of the Jerusalem church is so significant.This is not an inconsistency.Footnotes[1] http://Craig L. Blomberg, 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd Edition, chapter four, p.152[2] http://John Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, p.75[3] http://C.F. Stein, Difficult Passages in the Gospels, p.18-20; Stein also notes this conclusion in the writings of St.Augustine.[4] FORM CRITICISM[5] http://L. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, Cf.esp idem, 'Gospel of Mark' p.15-32[6] http://Caird, Gospel of St.Luke, p.178-179; Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol.2, p.221[7] http://Mose Hadas, The Complete Works of Tacitus, 'Introduction', pp.IX-XIX

Original Question and Comments :What would Lao Tzu think of how Trump is dealing with war and potential war?Specifically regarding North Korea & classified information. Is this all a game of multilevel chess by Trump???Lao Tzu (Chinese: 老子) was a classical Chinese philosopher of the 6th Century BC/BCE and credited with the founding of Taoism, and wrote the Tao Te Ching.Not to be confused with Sun Tzu (Chinese :孙子), another ancient Chinese philosopher and military strategist more associated with 'The Art of War' or 'The 13 Chapters' in the 5th Century BC/BCE, and so about 100 years later.As your question name Lao Tzu, I will try to address what he said and how Trump is dealing with that, and what he might comment. If you re-ask your question, I would go into the Art of War teachings and what Sun Tzu may have thought about Trumps performance.The central teaching is primal principal pervading the Universe, the Tao, and how to achieve that enlightenment and freedom from suffering. President #45 has no signs of humility, virtue and goodness, so Lao Tzu would be deeply disappointed in him.The guidance includes these statements:1. Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.Trump does not respect others and is a bully and perhaps a pervert, at least does not respect women. Therefore his courage is absent.2. Simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures.Simple in actions and thoughts, you return to the source of being.Patient with both friends and enemies, you accord with the way things are.Compassionate toward yourself,you reconcile all beings in the world.”Sir Tweetalot is definitely simple, but no patience or compassion.3. Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know. President Trump has an abundance of the latter.4. When you are content to be simply yourself and don't compare or compete, everyone will respect you. That is not describing President Trump.5. The best fighter is never angry. Trump is ready for brinksmanship and assault owing to anger over the North Korean's flouting their missile technology. He has the power to fire and direct, as president of the USA.6. If you understand others you are smart.If you understand yourself you are illuminated.If you overcome others you are powerful.If you overcome yourself you have strength.If you know how to be satisfied you are rich.If you can act with vigor, you have a will.If you don't lose your objectives you can be long-lasting.If you die without loss, you are eternal.Trump is not smart, but does seem to have a good sense of his own persona. Although being his own worst enemy, he has not been able to overcome himself. He does know how to satisfy himself, and is pretty rich in assets and bank account. He is definitely fully functional and seems to be holding up even the he says the job is harder than he expected. He seems to have lost much of his objectives, failing on the Health Care bill, likely to fail with the budget and tax reform and building a wall at the Mexican border. I wish him a long and healthy life, so the last point is moot.